brushfoot

7 ms·

61.
by brushfoot 1y ago
Solopreneur making use of it in my bootstrapped B2B SaaS business. Clients don't need or want anything flashy. There are islands of interactivity, and some HTMX sprinkled there has been a great fit.
62.
by brushfoot 1y ago
Copilot at $10/mo. lets you use Sonnet 4 in VS Code, which has been working very well for me in agent mode. Curious what Claude Max offers that sets it apart.
63.
by brushfoot 1y ago
My experience has mostly been the opposite -- changes to several-hundred-line files usually only take a few seconds. That said, months ago I did experience the kind of slow agent edit times you mentioned. I don't know where the bottlen
64.
by brushfoot 2y ago
At this rate, it's more than FOSS infrastructure -- although that's a canary in the coalmine I especially sympathize with -- it's anonymous Internet access altogether. Because you can put your site behind an auth wall, but th
65.
by brushfoot 2y ago
I've read the Meditations -- in the Emperor's Handbook translation -- and they're nothing like GP is making them out to be. In their original, unedited comment, they didn't even get Marcus Aurelius's name right, att
66.
by brushfoot 2y ago
> Cursor deciding which files to add to context then charging you for the size of the context Copilot is unlimited for a flat fee [1]. I've been happy with it. They also have a free tier now, but it's limited to 50 chats a mont
67.
by brushfoot 2y ago
I disagree that this is a useful springboard. And I say that as an AI optimist. A report full of factual errors that a careful intern wouldn't make is worse than useless (yes, yes, I've mentored interns). If the hard part is the l
68.
by brushfoot 2y ago
Apps to fight apps has never worked for me. When I'm bored/tired enough, it becomes a game to disable my own restrictions. What works for me is removing the antecedent completely by charging my phone in another room at night. Now
69.
by brushfoot 2y ago
I resent that accusation. We should have a Zoom call on two Canon webcams to hash this out.
70.
by brushfoot 2y ago
Nothing about this is deceptive or a violation of consumer rights. Far from it. This is common for cameras. My Sony works in the same way. It can be used as a webcam using HDMI and a capture card. Canon clearly states this in their marketin
71.
by brushfoot 2y ago
Not a big deal at all. The outrage in this thread is incredible. Buying a couple A/V adapters to adapt a non-webcam camera into a webcam is somehow seen as a terrible burden. If someone doesn't want to do that, perhaps they should
72.
by brushfoot 2y ago
I can imagine supporting my right to charge my customers for the software I build for them, absolutely. And I support Canon's right to do the same. Many of us have had the experience of clients telling us to "just" write code
73.
by brushfoot 2y ago
You still can use it as a webcam. It's right there in the marketing materials. Clean HDMI out. That lets you use it as a webcam. Canon advertising its potential to be used as a webcam doesn't mean it's a webcam. It means you
74.
by brushfoot 2y ago
That's what the marketers wanted us to think, sure. It's like me trying to sell you a car that can "turn into" a boat with the right attachments. Notice I didn't say how much the attachments cost.
75.
by brushfoot 2y ago
The marketing material for OP's model: > Use the EOS Utility Webcam Beta Software (Mac and Windows) to turn your Canon camera into a high-quality webcam, or do the same using a clean HDMI output.
76.
by brushfoot 2y ago
No, they don't. They advertise that the camera can "turn into" a webcam with the right software or through HDMI out.
77.
by brushfoot 2y ago
That's upsetting, but my point is the article itself is rage bait. It's not outrageous for Canon to charge for webcam software when there's HDMI video-out on the camera.
78.
by brushfoot 2y ago
It's a workaround for the camera not bundling all the features that it needs to be a webcam, absolutely. The standalone cameras I've used haven't included free webcam functionality and I don't think that's outrageou
79.
by brushfoot 2y ago
> That's only because they're greedy No, it's because Canon didn't sell OP a webcam. There's no expectation for them to provide webcam software. If someone wants an external camera that doubles as a webcam with n
80.
by brushfoot 2y ago
It's rage bait. People hate subscriptions, understandably so, and people without A/V experience might expect a camera not sold as a webcam to easily double as a webcam since they both can capture video. It's just a really poo
81.
by brushfoot 2y ago
OP bought a camera not sold as a webcam and is trying to use it as a webcam. Fair enough, I've done the same. A standard way of doing that is to use a video cable to get video output and plug that into a capture card on your computer.
82.
by brushfoot 2y ago
On these cameras, HDMI is the right tool for the job. USB video quality is often poor where it's supported, and HDMI is there for video output. These cameras are not made to be webcams. OP is using theirs as one, and that's fine;
83.
by brushfoot 2y ago
OP is using a camera as a webcam that's not sold as a webcam. That's fine, I do the same with mine, but it's also fine of the manufacturer to allow for that by simply providing A/V interfaces instead of trying to account
84.
by brushfoot 2y ago
The company can charge whatever they want for this feature. Most people who can afford to use a good camera as their webcam will never use it, because they know the quality is worse and they'd rather use industry-standard HDMI. If I as
85.
by brushfoot 2y ago
> Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera Getting video into your computer through USB is _not_ built into the camera. Else why is OP downloading an app to do it? The app is part of
86.
by brushfoot 2y ago
The app is part of the implementation. And they're apparently subsidizing the cost by charging separately for it. Drop the fee and that's now baked into the camera's base price.
87.
by brushfoot 2y ago
I have that setup too. I was referring to this: > it won't autofocus continuously or keep the exposure and white balance stable unless you're recording a video That basically defeats our setup as now they're worrying about
88.
by brushfoot 2y ago
A word of warning on capture cards: I first bought a no-name off Amazon, thinking to save money. The video quality was abysmal. Artifacts everywhere. I returned it and got an Elgato, which has worked great from day one.
89.
by brushfoot 2y ago
Same setup here, down to the brand. For those who don't know, the dummy battery is a power cable with a battery-shaped adapter that plugs in where the battery would go to provide continuous power.
90.
by brushfoot 2y ago
Why should the manufacturer raise the price of the camera for you and me just to implement something extra OP wants that they can already do through HDMI?

More ›